Two more victims of "unknown substance" in U.K.

Dohnjoe · 11-10-2018 10:17pm

mbur wrote: »

There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all.

Porton Down and the OPCW independently claimed it was from the Novichok family. The emergency services and staff treated them for nerve agent exposure.

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

mcmoustache · 11-10-2018 10:49pm

mbur wrote: »

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all. So cut it out with the veiled insults and stick with the facts for a change. As for getting your info from some guy's blog - Isn't that what you, The BBC, RTE etc, etc, are doing?

Oh and all that straw man stuff about Rob Slane's religious beliefs it does your case no credit. The way I see it, if a believer like him won't swallow the UK governments version of the Skripal case then who will. So lets just consider his many questions about the Skripal case. This in particular:

So while we wait for Bellingcat's next revalation Consider this:

All the while noting that the important actors in this saga have left the stage with the assistance of the UK government, The Skripals and the mysterious Det Sgt Nick Bailey.

I've already discussed this with people who share your opinion. They had different usernames but it was the same nonsense. Your ideas are not unique not are they any special insight. They're the usual guff that comes from listening to and reading nonsense that instills a warm sense of specialness and a hidden knowledge in their audience. They FEEL good but they're just ideas from some guy without a clue sounding clever to those who don't know any better.

Evidence has been presented throughout this thread and stupid ideas have been debunked. If you have some better insight than some guy's blog, I'll be patient enough to read it. If it's the same shíte that's already been shown to be nonsense earlier in the thread, I'll treat it as such.

It's up to you. Present something better than that conspiratorial nonsense.

Cheerful Spring · 11-10-2018 11:05pm

mbur wrote: »

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all. So cut it out with the veiled insults and stick with the facts for a change. As for getting your info from some guy's blog - Isn't that what you, The BBC, RTE etc, etc, are doing?

Oh and all that straw man stuff about Rob Slane's religious beliefs it does your case no credit. The way I see it, if a believer like him won't swallow the UK governments version of the Skripal case then who will. So lets just consider his many questions about the Skripal case. This in particular:

So while we wait for Bellingcat's next revalation Consider this:

All the while noting that the important actors in this saga have left the stage with the assistance of the UK government, The Skripals and the mysterious Det Sgt Nick Bailey.

Well, you have to explain why two GRU agents pretending to be tourists were walking near Skipral home?

That Russia denied Colonel Anatoly Chepiga even existed pretty much confirms this was a botched operation.

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

mbur · 12-10-2018 1:37am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, you have to explain why two GRU agents pretending to be tourists were walking near Skipral home?

That Russia denied Colonel Anatoly Chepiga even existed pretty much confirms this was a botched operation.

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

Dohnjoe · 12-10-2018 10:09am

mbur wrote: »

No, I don't have to prove or explain anything

Actually the onus is on you, you are the one making the claim that all the information is false/insufficient

So far, you haven't provided anything credible to support this claim. Personally and subjectively "declaring" that the event is not as it seems, claiming that the authorities, investigators and press are all lying, then walking away refusing to debate any of it or provide any evidence is not an acceptable argument

mcmoustache · 12-10-2018 10:09am

mbur wrote: »

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

Chepiga's identity is publicly verifiable information. You can go to his militarily academy's website and see both his name and picture. His name pops up on other official websites too.

You can choose to ignore that if you like but at this point you may as well be arguing that Finland doesn't exist.

mbur · 12-10-2018 6:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Actually the onus is on you, you are the one making the claim that all the information is false/insufficient

So far, you haven't provided anything credible to support this claim. Personally and subjectively "declaring" that the event is not as it seems, claiming that the authorities, investigators and press are all lying, then walking away refusing to debate any of it or provide any evidence is not an acceptable argument

I have already provided a link to a blog which has plenty of questions for you to answer. You chose to ignore the issues raised and went straight into mockery mode. I'd walk away from you any day of the week.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, a religious blog. Interesting.

Care to share with the "sheeple" what really happened to the Skripals?

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was about to check it out. Thanks for saving me the time. Is it as good as Craig "wrong all the time" Murray's blog?

Dohnjoe · 12-10-2018 6:37pm

mbur wrote: »

I have already provided a link to a blog

Yes, a religious blog, not exactly a credible source of information. For example, what qualifies his views over that of the investigators, experts and independent sources at the OPCW?

issues raised

I am not ignoring the issues, I am asking questions which you immediately appear to avoid

Also you are the one making the claims here. If you can't back up those claims, why should anyone take your views seriously?

If you at least prefaced your views with "these are just my opinions", but you don't, you state them as fact

mbur · 12-10-2018 8:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am not ignoring the issues,

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?
5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?
6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from Craig Murray

I have just received confirmation from the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau that both the European Arrest Warrant and Interpol Red Notice remain in the names of Boshirov and Petrov, with the caveat that both are probably aliases. Nothing has been issued in the name of Chepiga or Mishkin.

As for Bellingcat’s “conclusive and definitive evidence”, Scotland Yard repeated to me this afternoon that their earlier statement on Bellingcat’s allegations remains in force: “we are not going to comment on speculation about their identities.”

You're welcome.

Billy86 · 12-10-2018 8:35pm

mbur wrote: »

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.

4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?

I can think of two people that could probably answer all of those questions easily, though unfortunately one is keeping tight lipped and the other is no longer with us.

Gatling · 12-10-2018 9:04pm

mbur wrote: »

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

*1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used( respected and independent sciencetists at portion down)
*2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.(Russia)
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
*4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?(Russian security and intelligence services)
*5) where are the Skripals (Currently in the UK)
*6) does anyone regard "Russian" security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

You're welcome.

Fixed your post

Your welcome

Dohnjoe · 12-10-2018 9:22pm

mbur wrote: »

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?

The condition of the Skripals indicated they have been exposed to a chemical or nerve agent. As confirmed by the hospital staff, doctors and professionals who treated them.
The agent was later found to be from the Novichok family (by Porton Down)
This was independently confirmed by the OPCW (this is the international body with 193 member states)

2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.

This is the big question, but we do have an idea. A strong idea.

3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.

We do know, it was confirmed to be the same agent that poisoned the Skripals. It was in a perfume bottle.

4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?

To send a very public message and a deterrent. Kim Jong Un is widely suspected to have been involved in the killing of his half brother using VX Nerve agent. Russia is widely suspected in the killing of ex-spy Litvinenko using Polonium 210 (the two suspects are Russians)

5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?

Because someone tried to kill them with a powerful nerve agent. Yulia indicated in a video interview they wished their whereabouts to remain private

6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

So far their information in this case has proved to be accurate. Also it's bolstered by the fact that many other nations (with their own intelligence services) have corroborated this information. Not to mention independent confirmation by organisations such as the OPCW

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from

Another blog. Craig Murray is not a valid source.

You're welcome.

I answered your questions, here are mine

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

and if you don't believe they were poisoned by GRU agents with Novichok, then care to explain what really happened?

mbur · 12-10-2018 9:28pm

Billy86 wrote: »

I can think of two people that could probably answer all of those questions easily, though unfortunately one is keeping tight lipped and the other is no longer with us.

Alexander Litvinenko was in no doubt who killed him. I have no reason to doubt his opinion.

There is no help for us here regarding question 1 and 2 in the Skripal case.

Maybe Sergei Skripal will be allowed to speak his mind in public.

I think the case rather proves point number 4. Nerve agents clearly unreliable and awkward to work with.

Strangulation on the other hand, slips right under the radar.

Do we need to ask the British government why that is so?

Cheerful Spring · 12-10-2018 9:59pm

mbur wrote: »

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

What you have to accept right now is these two Russian men travelled to Salisbury and were using fake personas. It clear as day the men who appeared on RT are not fitness instructors. If they had nothing to hide they would not claim to be something they are not. They were involved in this poisoning of Skipral, and ease to claim that's true, as you got two Russian men travelling on fake passports to the UK and they were near a Skipral home on that day of the incident. Russia has to explain this not the UK authorities.

The only thing that not known yet when exactly did Skipral return home. There still some doubts if the attack took place at Skipral home or in the town of Salisbury itself? Skipral turned off his phone for four hours in the morning that's never been explained what exactly he was doing then?

But knowing these men have been involved in the incident, I see no reason to doubt the Skipral and his daughter was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichiok. If you don't believe that you are then claiming the hospital staff are also involved in lying about the symptoms shown? Maybe the Novichok was mixed another deadly chemical that's not improbable to me? But they definitely were attacked by a nerve agent.

Cheerful Spring · 12-10-2018 10:17pm

mbur wrote: »

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?
5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?
6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from Craig Murray

You're welcome.

Chepiga name was listed on a Russian military website. That pretty much confirms Bellingcat information is reliable. Russia denied a person of this name received a military award. Russia has themselves confirmed the allegations are true by denying Chepiga exists.

It was a botched operation. Who knows if was sanctioned by Putin? It was amateurish how they did it but maybe the GRU is not what used to be? Maybe they underfunded to carry out operations?

mbur · 12-10-2018 10:36pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another blog. Craig Murray is not a valid source.

LOL Who is?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I answered your questions, here are mine

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

and if you don't believe they were poisoned by GRU agents with Novichok, then care to explain what really happened?.

I'm very flattered that you are so interested in my opinions and I am familiar with the official narrative thank you.

1. There are several candidates. I'm not in a position to pick one.

2. Something in the sealed bottle that he opened maybe?

I'm not a hard believer in any particular theory including the GRU one.
Hate to sound like a killjoy but lets see where the evidence takes us.

I came into this discussion because I wanted to share my amazement that so many outlets were taking the Bellincat revelations so seriously. I am glad to see that Scotland Yard seem to share my opinion that the so called revelations are only speculation.

The "unreliable" mr Murray does smell a rat you maybe interested in.

It is now a near certainty that Boshirov and Petrov are indeed fake identities. If the two were real people, it is inconceivable that by now their identities would not have been fully established with details of their history, lives, family and milieu. I do not apologise for exercising all due caution, rather than enthusiasm, about a narrative promoted to increase international tension with Russia, but am now convinced Petrov and Boshirov were not who they claimed.

Very fair I thought. I just hope we are not creating two more victims.

Dohnjoe · 12-10-2018 10:49pm

mbur wrote: »

LOL Who is?

A blogger on the internet is not a strong a source as e.g. the consensus between Porton Down lab and OPCW, both of which are experts on nerve agents

They had access to the evidence, blood samples, Craig Murray did not

PD and OPCW are separate sources which independently corroborated each other. Craig Murray is one person

Do you genuinely not see the difference between these sources?

I'm very flattered that you are so interested in my opinions and I am familiar with the official narrative thank you.

1. There are several candidates. I'm not in a position to pick one.

Which are?

2. Something in the sealed bottle that he opened maybe?

If it wasn't Novichok then what was it?

If you don't have any evidence of anything, then what is the basis of your belief that it was something else?

I came into this discussion because I wanted to share my amazement that so many outlets were taking the Bellincat revelations so seriously.

Bellingcat is an investigative organisation which has to date produced some strong cases with credible results, which are backed up by evidence

It's rated as having a "high factual reporting"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bellingcat/

mbur · 13-10-2018 12:29am

This is interesting. It's the OPCW report on the Skripal case.

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf

It says that the toxic chemical is "allegedly a nerve agent" You'd think they would know.

It also says "the toxic chemical was of a high purity". Odd that there aren't more dead people.

But the kicker is section 12.

"The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties."

No mention of any Novichok. So it appears that neither Porton Down nor the OPCW has publicly confirmed that the poison was Novichok. The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Here is the Amesbury report.

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018/09/s-1671-2018(e)_0.pdf

Same chemical 97%-98% purity but maybe not the same batch.

Least dangerous “military grade” nerve agent ever and no evidence of where it came from..

Dohnjoe · 13-10-2018 12:40am

mbur wrote: »

It says that the toxic chemical is "allegedly a nerve agent" You'd think they would know.

They do know, they confirmed the findings of Porton Down

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

They also confirmed that a "Novichok-type agent" was what affected Sturgess and Rowley

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-poison/chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-novichok-use-in-amesbury-idUSKCN1LK2I7

It also says "the toxic chemical was of a high purity". Odd that there aren't more dead people.

Depends on dosage. You can have extremely high purity Novichok that you can drink in a glass of water and be fine. Dosage is key.

Why are you avoiding the questions?

By the way we've been through all this in the thread, it's all in here

mbur · 13-10-2018 1:30am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They do know, they confirmed the findings of Porton Down

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

They also confirmed that a "Novichok-type agent" was what affected Sturgess and Rowley

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-poison/chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-novichok-use-in-amesbury-idUSKCN1LK2I7

Depends on dosage. You can have extremely high purity Novichok that you can drink in a glass of water and be fine. Dosage is key.

Why are you avoiding the questions?

By the way we've been through all this in the thread, it's all in here

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?

Dohnjoe · 13-10-2018 2:14am

mbur wrote: »

The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

The source was the Porton Down lab, which determined that a nerve agent was used, and that it came from the Novichok family. The OPCW independently confirmed those findings. This was further corroborated when the other pair were exposed to the same substance (one of whom died), and again the OPCW confirmed that the nerve agent was used in both cases. Yulia Skripal has made a statement about this, the poisoning and the use of the nerve agent.

To date no evidence has emerged that it was any other type of nerve agent (e.g. VX, Sarin) or any other type of poison

You claimed there are "several candidates" for the poisonings, which ones? and what evidence is there for each?

What was in the perfume bottle that killed Sturgess? She sprayed it on her skin and died shortly after, there aren't many substances that do that. The OPCW sent samples of it to 2 labs which confirmed it was the same substance that poisoned the Skripals, what information do you have that is contrary to that?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 12:00am

mbur wrote: »

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?

Your correct but they identified the chemical structure that is alleged to be a formula for Novitchok.

I would not get too hung up on pet names for nerve agents. It was identified as a nerve agent and really doesn't matter if it was Novitchok or not they still got attacked.

cnocbui · 14-10-2018 1:08pm

mbur wrote: »

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?

The 'source' of the Novichok analysis was Porton Down, not parliament. Novichok is a term used to describe a class of chemically related compounds, hence the 'type-agent' so that phrasing does not indicate doubt. The OPCW don't 'allege' they clearly state, on the basis of confirmatory analyses conducted by several independent laboratories.

Elmer Blooker · 17-10-2018 2:58pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

There still some doubts if the attack took place at Skipral home or in the town of Salisbury itself?

Confused or what?

Gatling · 17-10-2018 5:34pm

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Confused or what?

If boards asked if today was Wednesday people on here would be confused about the answer

Dohnjoe · 18-10-2018 1:18pm

Gatling wrote: »

If boards asked if today was Wednesday people on here would be confused about the answer

Actually you'd be more likely to get some twat arguing that it was Thursday in New Zealand and that the "Western imperialist" calendar was a tool of oppression stolen from another race or some nonsense :pac:

Harry Palmr · 24-01-2019 1:12pm

All in the best possible taste

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/salisbury-novichok-attack-board-game-on-sale-russia

A Russian toymaker has released a board game called Our Guys in Salisbury, featuring the same cities in Europe visited by the GRU agents accused of carrying out last year’s nerve agent attack.

Salisbury, the finish line in the game, is decorated with images of the city’s cathedral and two figures in hazmat suits. They are taken from photographs of the police response to the poisoning of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia last March.

In one corner of the board is a spray bottle bearing a green skull and crossbones, seemingly a reference to the perfume bottle that British police said the Novichok nerve agent was transported in.

In another corner are two illustrated figures resembling the suspected assailants, Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin. The two Russian intelligence officers were placed under sanctions by the EU on Monday for their suspected role in the poisonings.

Spannerplank · 24-01-2019 10:33pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

All in the best possible taste

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/salisbury-novichok-attack-board-game-on-sale-russia

A Russian toymaker has released a board game called Our Guys in Salisbury, featuring the same cities in Europe visited by the GRU agents accused of carrying out last year’s nerve agent attack.

Salisbury, the finish line in the game, is decorated with images of the city’s cathedral and two figures in hazmat suits. They are taken from photographs of the police response to the poisoning of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia last March.

In one corner of the board is a spray bottle bearing a green skull and crossbones, seemingly a reference to the perfume bottle that British police said the Novichok nerve agent was transported in.

In another corner are two illustrated figures resembling the suspected assailants, Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin. The two Russian intelligence officers were placed under sanctions by the EU on Monday for their suspected role in the poisonings.

It is kinda funny. The HazMat suits made me laugh.

cnocbui · 25-01-2019 1:56pm

Murder and state sourced terrorism made a laugh? Not for me.

mbur · 04-03-2019 12:45am

cnocbui wrote: »

Murder and state sourced terrorism made a laugh? Not for me.

You are right, It is no joke.
My problem is that I remain in serious doubt as to which state is indulging in "terrorism"

It was quite obvious from the outset, when the UK Government came to a conclusion before any evidence had been properly assessed, that any subsequent investigation had already been politicised. There was therefore little hope that the investigation would be impartial, and that if evidence was found to contradict the Government’s assessment, that it would be presented.

The investigation conducted is badly flawed and frankly incredible because:

The Skripals have not been allowed to give their account of what happened that day to the media, and the media allowed to freely ask questions.

There is no thorough account of the two Russian suspects’ movements, just highly selective bits of footage that imply where they went, while leaving out the footage that shows where they did actually go.

The failure to release CCTV footage showing what happened in The Maltings in order to appeal for witnesses to come forward.

Important information, such as the duck feed and the close proximity of the suspects to the Skripals at that time, has not been given out to the public, and included in the timeline.

There remains no explanation of the poisoning that is actually scientifically credible.

All credit to Rob Slane and others for staying with this one.

Two more victims of "unknown substance" in U.K.

Comments